Comparisons of Precision Measurement Methods for Metallic Resistivities

Abstract:

Article Preview

As widely-used methods to measure metallic resistivities, Four-terminal method, van der Pauw method, Four-Point Probe(FPP) method and eddy current method were compared and analysed to find the method with lowest uncertainty and accurate method for applying nondestructively to industry. STS 316, non-magnetic metal is used as sample for the four methods. Conductivity ratios by the four-terminal method and van der Pauw method had the lowest uncertainty of 0.25 % and the ratios by the FPP method had measurement uncertainty of 0.45 % when probe spacing was more than two times of sample thickness and dc 10 A is applied. Also, the ratio values by the eddy current method had 1 % or more difference from the four-terminal or van der Pauw method and measurement uncertainty was obtained as 0.93 %. From the results, former two methods had the lowest uncertainty but are destructive methods so that those are difficult to apply to the field of industry. The FPP method is an accurate and nondestructive measurement method so that it can be used in the field. The eddy current method is one of nondestructive method but it has the highest uncertainty and low accuracy.

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 321-323)

Edited by:

Seung-Seok Lee, Joon Hyun Lee, Ik Keun Park, Sung-Jin Song, Man Yong Choi

Pages:

1465-1469

DOI:

10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.321-323.1465

Citation:

J. H. Kang et al., "Comparisons of Precision Measurement Methods for Metallic Resistivities", Key Engineering Materials, Vols. 321-323, pp. 1465-1469, 2006

Online since:

October 2006

Export:

Price:

$35.00

[1] ASTM B 193-78, Resistivity of electrical conductor materials (1978).

[2] A.R. Jones, ASTM STP 722 (1981), pp.94-118.

[3] Van der Pauw, Philips Res. Rep, vol. 13(1958), pp.1-9.

[4] ASTM F 1529-97, Standard Test Method for Sheet Resistance Uniformity Evaluation by In-Line Four-Point Probe with the Dual-Configuration Procedure, (1997).

DOI: 10.1520/f1529

[5] C. Kasl and M.J.R. Hoch, Review of Scientific Instruments, Vol. 76(2005), 033907-1-033907-4.

[6] Seung-Hoon Nahm, Jeong-Min Kim, Jong-Seo Park, Kwang-Min Yu, Dong-Kyun Kim, Amkee Kim and Dong-Jin Kim, Key Engineering Materials Vols. 270-273(2004), pp.1212-1217.

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.270-273.1212

In order to see related information, you need to Login.